Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Frosty the no man as our next PM? – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    On topic, Lord Frost would make an excellent PM, but there are three things that rule him out:

    - he's principled
    - he knows what he's talking about
    - he has a habit of being unfashionably right.

    When the fashion is towards sub-Blairite bullshitters, as it is now, I can't see him getting in, no matter how well he'd serve the country. But if and when things get bad enough that we need another Margaret Thatcher, I hope he'll still be there.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Nah, that’s not how we viewed them at the time. A lot of Tories seem to want to claim Blair for the right, and many in the Labour Party want to let them, but all he had become was pragmatic. The heart of that party was still on the Left and there’s where a lot of the statist stuff the LibDems opposed came in.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,620
    Finland formally confirms bid to join NATO

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61441664
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2022

    To the left of doesn’t necessarily mean “socialist”.

    My suspicion is that most people happy to adopt a label, or apply one to an opponent, are not actually very good examples of that label. Plenty of unconservative Conservatives, illiberal Liberals, unprogressive progressives, and indeed many who are called (or are happy to be called) socialists who at best have a loose relationship with socialism.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    Yes, for mere persistent repetition to make something CORRECT, it needs to be done in CAPITALS.
    Nonsense, it also needs EXCLAMATION points!!!
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339

    biggles said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
    'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
    They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
    No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
    Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
    Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage.
    Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
    Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
    In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.

    Not something you'd want on your CV now.
    Short hours and limited workload though
    Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
    They needed to keep someone there for when Howard sent Boz to apologize. The current guy runs it from a mobile phone screen repair booth
    He’s also the Sun’s sales agent and organises the delivery of Man U shirts.
    And heads up the committee campaigning for the removal of the Liver Bird and the arrest and imprisonment of Steven Gerrard
    Last heard from when he proposed that Liverpool and Everton ground share to save costs.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Frost resigned when he realised he couldn’t do Brexit properly.

    Same as Raab and Davis before him.

    Rees-Mogg needs to hurry up and follow suit.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    Turns out the Liberal party has 11 coucillors nationally with 5 in Liverpool. They won a seat in the new North Yorks authority in Pickering.
    They are thus a more successful party than Ukip or Reform at this time.
    Rod liddles/Patrick O'Flynns SDP are on 1 which they won in the elections
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    edited May 2022
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
    'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
    They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
    No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
    Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
    Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage.
    Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
    West Didsbury and Chorlton FC song.

    “West, West, wherever you may be, We eat hummus and celery, We don’t eat meat, we love broccoli, We’re Chorlton and West
    Didsbury.”

    Hummus, hummus, quinoa, quinoa.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339

    Frost resigned when he realised he couldn’t do Brexit properly.

    Same as Raab and Davis before him.

    Rees-Mogg needs to hurry up and follow suit.

    Rees-Mogg will fall the first time any civil servant is faced with the choice of immediately acting to save their minister, or waiting until the following morning. Suspect he’s made few friends.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Frost resigned when he realised he couldn’t do Brexit properly.

    Same as Raab and Davis before him.

    Rees-Mogg needs to hurry up and follow suit.

    Rees-Mogg has no other prospects, he cannot quit.

    You might say the same for the other two, but they at least didn't squeak into the proper Cabinet despite being at junior minister level by title.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
    'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
    They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
    No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
    Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
    Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage.
    Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
    Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
    In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.

    Not something you'd want on your CV now.
    Short hours and limited workload though
    Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
    They needed to keep someone there for when Howard sent Boz to apologize. The current guy runs it from a mobile phone screen repair booth
    He’s also the Sun’s sales agent and organises the delivery of Man U shirts.
    And heads up the committee campaigning for the removal of the Liver Bird and the arrest and imprisonment of Steven Gerrard
    Last heard from when he proposed that Liverpool and Everton ground share to save costs.
    Proposed a big kickabout on Stanley Park and got more than he bargained for
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339

    Turns out the Liberal party has 11 coucillors nationally with 5 in Liverpool. They won a seat in the new North Yorks authority in Pickering.
    They are thus a more successful party than Ukip or Reform at this time.
    Rod liddles/Patrick O'Flynns SDP are on 1 which they won in the elections

    It’s about time the Liberals got on Question Time then.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,534
    Fishing said:

    On topic, Lord Frost would make an excellent PM, but there are three things that rule him out:

    - he's principled
    - he knows what he's talking about
    - he has a habit of being unfashionably right.

    When the fashion is towards sub-Blairite bullshitters, as it is now, I can't see him getting in, no matter how well he'd serve the country. But if and when things get bad enough that we need another Margaret Thatcher, I hope he'll still be there.

    I take it this is a sarcastic post !
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    Fishing said:

    On topic, Lord Frost would make an excellent PM, but there are three things that rule him out:

    - he's principled
    - he knows what he's talking about
    - he has a habit of being unfashionably right.

    When the fashion is towards sub-Blairite bullshitters, as it is now, I can't see him getting in, no matter how well he'd serve the country. But if and when things get bad enough that we need another Margaret Thatcher, I hope he'll still be there.

    Bollocks, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows Frosty is always wrong.

    He's such a snowflake he blocks people who point out to him who negotiated the Northern Ireland Protocol he so often rails against.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet you manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Fishing said:

    On topic, Lord Frost would make an excellent PM, but there are three things that rule him out:

    - he's principled
    - he knows what he's talking about
    - he has a habit of being unfashionably right.

    Really? He seems to have successfully broken the habit and successfully concealed his knowledge.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Nah, that’s not how we viewed them at the time. A lot of Tories seem to want to claim Blair for the right, and many in the Labour Party want to let them, but all he had become was pragmatic. The heart of that party was still on the Left and there’s where a lot of the statist stuff the LibDems opposed came in.
    Absolutely spot on.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    biggles said:

    Turns out the Liberal party has 11 coucillors nationally with 5 in Liverpool. They won a seat in the new North Yorks authority in Pickering.
    They are thus a more successful party than Ukip or Reform at this time.
    Rod liddles/Patrick O'Flynns SDP are on 1 which they won in the elections

    It’s about time the Liberals got on Question Time then.
    They should do a Spanner Time edition - representatives of Ukip, Reform, Lawrence Foxes circle wank group, the Liberals, SDP, Gwlad and the big beasts of Alba
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
    'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
    They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
    No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
    Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
    Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage.
    Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
    Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
    In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.

    Not something you'd want on your CV now.
    Short hours and limited workload though
    Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
    They needed to keep someone there for when Howard sent Boz to apologize. The current guy runs it from a mobile phone screen repair booth
    He’s also the Sun’s sales agent and organises the delivery of Man U shirts.
    And heads up the committee campaigning for the removal of the Liver Bird and the arrest and imprisonment of Steven Gerrard
    Last heard from when he proposed that Liverpool and Everton ground share to save costs.
    To be fair to my acquaintance, he wasn’t much younger than me, so I’d assume he’s propping up the bar in some Con Club somewhere!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Nah, that’s not how we viewed them at the time. A lot of Tories seem to want to claim Blair for the right, and many in the Labour Party want to let them, but all he had become was pragmatic. The heart of that party was still on the Left and there’s where a lot of the statist stuff the LibDems opposed came in.
    Kennedy was more statist than Blair, certainly on the economy and public services, only exception civil liberties
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    You are so obsessed with Brexit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    It did seem an odd claim. I don't think being known professionally for writing about the poor counts as profiteering.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    edited May 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet yo manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    ISTR that was more about Iraq.
    Certainly the Muslims I was teaching at the time didn't find the pursuit of pure Socialism as a motivation to vote.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    Jonathan said:

    Charles needs to get rid of the outdated military peacock gear and lose the Trumpian gold bling behind him.

    If he wants a military look, he should wear Zelenskys green T-shirt and read the speech on Twitter from the street.

    I am not entirely unserious.

    No.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet yo manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    ISTR that was more about Iraq.
    Certainly the Muslims I was teaching at the time didn't find the pursuit of pure Socialism as a motivation to vote.
    Even before the Iraq war in 2001 when the New Labour vote fell by 2.5%, the vote for Kennedy's LDs was up 1.5%, compared to the Tory vote under Hague only going up 1%
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,002

    You are so obsessed with Brexit.
    The irony

    The whole site is and maybe accept that the article makes good points and shows Germany and France as failing their fellow members
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    kle4 said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    It did seem an odd claim. I don't think being known professionally for writing about the poor counts as profiteering.
    A good opportunity for a Marxist lawyer to take up his case.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 582
    kle4 said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    It did seem an odd claim. I don't think being known professionally for writing about the poor counts as profiteering.
    This is bonkers. When Lee Anderson first made his comments about people not knowing how to cook, he could have singled Monroe out as someone who offers good advice on how to cook and eat well on a low income. Jack Monroe would have hated being praised by a Tory MP but it would have shown Anderson as someone who is concerned about people on low incomes improving their lives rather than making cheap shots about the poor.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    edited May 2022
    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.

    The kids are ultra right wing but don’t know it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    Missing the point, he might end up in a financially ruinous position even if she doesn't win the case.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited May 2022

    You are so obsessed with Brexit.
    The irony

    The whole site is and maybe accept that the article makes good points and shows Germany and France as failing their fellow members
    It’s a very good article, and demonstrates why the “pivot to East Asia” never made sense as an alternative to Europe.

    As for your posting, you seem to struggle to distinguish between Remainerism, “pro-EU” sentiment, and French / German apologism.

    Much of Brexit opinion seems fabricated of this muddle-ended thinking and simple Franco or Teuto phobia.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    edited May 2022
    SandraMc said:

    kle4 said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    It did seem an odd claim. I don't think being known professionally for writing about the poor counts as profiteering.
    This is bonkers. When Lee Anderson first made his comments about people not knowing how to cook, he could have singled Monroe out as someone who offers good advice on how to cook and eat well on a low income. Jack Monroe would have hated being praised by a Tory MP but it would have shown Anderson as someone who is concerned about people on low incomes improving their lives rather than making cheap shots about the poor.
    Yeah. I didn't quite follow the logic of that bit either.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    Missing the point, he might end up in a financially ruinous position even if she doesn't win the case.
    Oh, I see. Well, yeah. Not likely he'd be left without backers though.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    The quote was that she takes money from some of the most vulnerable in society. I think that is more of a problem for him.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,620
    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    Missing the point, he might end up in a financially ruinous position even if she doesn't win the case.
    I'm sure loads of people would be happy to contribute to Mr Anderson if he wanted to do a crowdfunder for his legal costs. Might run into as many as two figures.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046

    Nicola Sturgeon is facing criticism from inside the SNP and political opponents for seeking common cause with Sinn Fein.

    Senior Scottish nationalists and opponents were surprised when the Scottish first minister extended “many congratulations” to the former political wing of the IRA for its success in the local elections.

    She wished its first minister designate Michelle O’Neill “the very best for what comes next”, saying the result demonstrated that there are “big questions” around the UK’s future “as a political entity”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-criticised-for-sinn-fein-comments-nt80jrp5b

    Talented politician. Moral vacuum.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    dixiedean said:

    SandraMc said:

    kle4 said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    It did seem an odd claim. I don't think being known professionally for writing about the poor counts as profiteering.
    This is bonkers. When Lee Anderson first made his comments about people not knowing how to cook, he could have singled Monroe out as someone who offers good advice on how to cook and eat well on a low income. Jack Monroe would have hated being praised by a Tory MP but it would have shown Anderson as someone who is concerned about people on low incomes improving their lives rather than making cheap shots about the poor.
    Yeah. I didn't quite follow the logic of that bit either.
    Indeed. They can’t cook but must not buy cookbooks.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet you manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    You are the most enormous plonker. Fyi I wasn't looking for anything because I don't have to because at the time I had a senior role in the LDs so I do actually know where we stood as unlike you I was actually part of it.

    If you must know I was reading Charles Kennedy' Wikipedia page when I saw it.

    Interesting that you consider an MPs view on a party higher than a senior party activist. It is something I have noticed about Tories. They are a lot less devolved. I remember local Tories asking often whether stuff we were doing had been approved by our council leader, candidate, HQ, etc. To which the answer was 'no, I know what I'm doing, I don't need permission'. On the contrary often permission would be the other way around.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Nicola Sturgeon is facing criticism from inside the SNP and political opponents for seeking common cause with Sinn Fein.

    Senior Scottish nationalists and opponents were surprised when the Scottish first minister extended “many congratulations” to the former political wing of the IRA for its success in the local elections.

    She wished its first minister designate Michelle O’Neill “the very best for what comes next”, saying the result demonstrated that there are “big questions” around the UK’s future “as a political entity”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-criticised-for-sinn-fein-comments-nt80jrp5b

    Talented politician. Moral vacuum.
    I’m a unionist, but I’m struggling to see how Sturgeon’s remarks can be construed as “immoral”.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    Missing the point, he might end up in a financially ruinous position even if she doesn't win the case.
    I'm sure loads of people would be happy to contribute to Mr Anderson if he wanted to do a crowdfunder for his legal costs. Might run into as many as two figures.
    Was that last word an autocorrect for 'fingers?'
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    mwadams said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    The quote was that she takes money from some of the most vulnerable in society. I think that is more of a problem for him.
    If he can demonstrate that some vulnerable people buy her books and that her books make a profit then I don't see the legal issue. It's a dick move to say it, sure, but what's not true about it in raw, factual, terms? I don't see the libel, just that he's insulted her.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    I really do think younger people are becoming quite right wing, in a way that wouldn’t have been possible 20 years ago, whilst thinking they are on the left.

    I think that will ultimately prove the downfall of the next Labour Government.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
    Speaking of this, I saw some data the other day which suggested that Brits spend more money as a % of disposable income on “out of pocket health expenses” than Americans.

    Seemed weird; presume it is something about the way it’s measured.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    I really do think younger people are becoming quite right wing, in a way that wouldn’t have been possible 20 years ago, whilst thinking they are on the left.

    I think that will ultimately prove the downfall of the next Labour Government.
    Not the young people I know.
    Full on communism has been “back” for some time.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet you manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    You are the most enormous plonker. Fyi I wasn't looking for anything because I don't have to because at the time I had a senior role in the LDs so I do actually know where we stood as unlike you I was actually part of it.

    If you must know I was reading Charles Kennedy' Wikipedia page when I saw it.

    Interesting that you consider an MPs view on a party higher than a senior party activist. It is something I have noticed about Tories. They are a lot less devolved. I remember local Tories asking often whether stuff we were doing had been approved by our council leader, candidate, HQ, etc. To which the answer was 'no, I know what I'm doing, I don't need permission'. On the contrary often permission would be the other way around.
    That's really interesting - it explains a lot about the success in having completely different local policies and processes. The perceived lack of coherency "at the top" comes from failing to recognize where "the top" is. Makes it harder to deal with a centralized press and media culture, though.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    I really do think younger people are becoming quite right wing, in a way that wouldn’t have been possible 20 years ago, whilst thinking they are on the left.

    I think that will ultimately prove the downfall of the next Labour Government.
    Or perhaps definitions of Left and Right are changing?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    edited May 2022

    mwadams said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    The quote was that she takes money from some of the most vulnerable in society. I think that is more of a problem for him.
    If he can demonstrate that some vulnerable people buy her books and that her books make a profit then I don't see the legal issue. It's a dick move to say it, sure, but what's not true about it in raw, factual, terms? I don't see the libel, just that he's insulted her.
    It may be the "earns more than the Prime Minister." bit.
    That is provable and would be detrimental to reputation. Claimed to be half that of an MP. We'll see in court. Or not if there's any sense.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet you manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    You are the most enormous plonker. Fyi I wasn't looking for anything because I don't have to because at the time I had a senior role in the LDs so I do actually know where we stood as unlike you I was actually part of it.

    If you must know I was reading Charles Kennedy' Wikipedia page when I saw it.

    Interesting that you consider an MPs view on a party higher than a senior party activist. It is something I have noticed about Tories. They are a lot less devolved. I remember local Tories asking often whether stuff we were doing had been approved by our council leader, candidate, HQ, etc. To which the answer was 'no, I know what I'm doing, I don't need permission'. On the contrary often permission would be the other way around.
    It says everything the only person you could find to support your proposition was not a single one of the 62 LD MPs or a LD Lord or even a senior councillor but one brief vice chair.

    While you have no response to the evidence I gave you that the main swing in 2001 and 2005 was Labour to LD not Labour to Tory ie leftwingers disillusioned with Blair but attracted to Kennedy over Iraq and Kennedy's left of New Labour economics
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited May 2022
    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
    Quite right. Too often, not invariably, but too often, they’re financially obsessed. And petty.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited May 2022
    dixiedean said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    I really do think younger people are becoming quite right wing, in a way that wouldn’t have been possible 20 years ago, whilst thinking they are on the left.

    I think that will ultimately prove the downfall of the next Labour Government.
    Or perhaps definitions of Left and Right are changing?
    If HYUFD was a TRUE conservative he wood argue that they only rightly apply to seating position in the French Assembly.

    No wonder he votes Plaid Cymru.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
    Quite right. Too often, not invariably, but too often, they’re financially obsessed. And petty.
    I resent being brushed off by receptionists in grotty waiting rooms on the once-in-a-decade occasions I actually feel I need medical support.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
    Quite right. Too often, not invariably, but too often, they’re financially obsessed. And petty.
    I resent being brushed off by receptionists in grotty waiting rooms on the once-in-a-decade occasions I actually feel I need medical support.

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
    Quite right. Too often, not invariably, but too often, they’re financially obsessed. And petty.
    I resent being brushed off by receptionists in grotty waiting rooms on the once-in-a-decade occasions I actually feel I need medical support.
    I don’t have anything against doctors themselves but I do note that when I am with them the subject seems to revolve around their very nice holidays and private schooling.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    dixiedean said:

    mwadams said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    The quote was that she takes money from some of the most vulnerable in society. I think that is more of a problem for him.
    If he can demonstrate that some vulnerable people buy her books and that her books make a profit then I don't see the legal issue. It's a dick move to say it, sure, but what's not true about it in raw, factual, terms? I don't see the libel, just that he's insulted her.
    It may be the "earns more than the Prime Minister." bit.
    That is provable and would be detrimental to reputation. Claimed to be half that of an MP. We'll see in court. Or not if there's any sense.
    That was Daubney rather than Anderson but yeah, lawyers can earn their fee there. She's unlikely to want her tax returns raked over though tbh, why would anyone?!
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    mwadams said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Hopkins was libelous, Anderson has suggested some poor people buy her books and that she has made a large profit from selling books.
    She's suing over hurty words
    The quote was that she takes money from some of the most vulnerable in society. I think that is more of a problem for him.
    She has Patreon, right?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    mwadams said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet you manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    You are the most enormous plonker. Fyi I wasn't looking for anything because I don't have to because at the time I had a senior role in the LDs so I do actually know where we stood as unlike you I was actually part of it.

    If you must know I was reading Charles Kennedy' Wikipedia page when I saw it.

    Interesting that you consider an MPs view on a party higher than a senior party activist. It is something I have noticed about Tories. They are a lot less devolved. I remember local Tories asking often whether stuff we were doing had been approved by our council leader, candidate, HQ, etc. To which the answer was 'no, I know what I'm doing, I don't need permission'. On the contrary often permission would be the other way around.
    That's really interesting - it explains a lot about the success in having completely different local policies and processes. The perceived lack of coherency "at the top" comes from failing to recognize where "the top" is. Makes it harder to deal with a centralized press and media culture, though.
    Fits with my memory of being a Lib agent 70’s and 80’s. ‘Don’t get too far out of line’ was the general impression of our instructions. ‘And here’s some money!’.
    Although that wasn’t very often!
    Labour relaxed, but not as, Tories a lot more buttoned up.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    mwadams said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.

    It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
    Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
    It does
    From Wikipedia: Others, like the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Liberal Democrat Party, Donnachadh McCarthy, resigned, citing the party's shift to the right of the political spectrum under Kennedy in pursuit of Conservative votes.

    Does that sound left wing?
    So after ages trawling the Internet you manage to find one person who was not even a LD MP then to support your view.

    In 2005 the main swing was Labour to LD not Tory to LD.

    The New Labour vote was down 5.5%, the LD vote up 3.7% and the Conservative vote up 0.7%.

    That was all down to leftwing Labour voters leaving New Labour for Kennedy's more leftwing LDs
    You are the most enormous plonker. Fyi I wasn't looking for anything because I don't have to because at the time I had a senior role in the LDs so I do actually know where we stood as unlike you I was actually part of it.

    If you must know I was reading Charles Kennedy' Wikipedia page when I saw it.

    Interesting that you consider an MPs view on a party higher than a senior party activist. It is something I have noticed about Tories. They are a lot less devolved. I remember local Tories asking often whether stuff we were doing had been approved by our council leader, candidate, HQ, etc. To which the answer was 'no, I know what I'm doing, I don't need permission'. On the contrary often permission would be the other way around.
    That's really interesting - it explains a lot about the success in having completely different local policies and processes. The perceived lack of coherency "at the top" comes from failing to recognize where "the top" is. Makes it harder to deal with a centralized press and media culture, though.
    It isn't (or wasn't) that disorganized. If you had the right campaigning skills and views you were asked (arm twisted) to step up and then trained. I was agent for 2 guys and we ran a blistering local campaign, next thing I knew I was constituency chairman, then a campaign manager, then served on the regional executive and managed a number of parliamentary constituencies. If I was targeting anywhere I got help, but provided I was using tried and tested techniques I was left alone. At no time would a candidate tell me what to do, but I would tell them. However once elected it was over to them on policy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    edited May 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    There's no need to be Militant about it though.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I went to Liverpool as part of my “getting to know the country” tour when I moved to the UK.

    First time I ever saw two women fighting in a pub to the point of physical injury/blood.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I was there 2 years ago for an overnight stay before going to Northern Ireland. Every MP in Liverpool is Labour, neither Cameron, May or Johnson won a single MP in Liverpool so Brexit made no difference.

    There is also not a single Tory councillor in Liverpool, as I said it is a socialist city

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I went to Liverpool as part of my “getting to know the country” tour when I moved to the UK.

    First time I ever saw two women fighting in a pub to the point of physical injury/blood.
    You sure that wasn't Manchester/Salford?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    Lord Frost blames the Northern Ireland situation on the fact that the EU side knew that there was no credible threat to No Deal. That to me sounds plausible.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Now be fair TSE, comedy gold like the Wagatha Christie trial doesn't come around too often. Football news hasn't been this interesting in years.

    We're all immeasurably richer for it (apart from Rebakah Vardy, of course, who looks set to be considerably poorer).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2022

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    True.

    And now that you can’t get a GP appointment for love or money, people are voting with their wallets.

    In truth, the GP service needs fundamental reform anyway.
    Speaking of this, I saw some data the other day which suggested that Brits spend more money as a % of disposable income on “out of pocket health expenses” than Americans.

    Seemed weird; presume it is something about the way it’s measured.
    It’ll be to do with the definition, presumably doesn’t count things like insurance co-pay in the US.

    IIRC, Brits actually have more cosmetic surgery than Americans, our perception of the US being skewed by an over-representation of Californians in the media

    Co-pay is something I still don’t really understand. I have company health insurance with a 10% co-pay. It must cost more in admin to charge me £4 to see the doctor, and charging me that £4 isn’t going to affect my decision whether or not to go. Yet when I needed a minor operation that probably cost £3k, the insurance paid in full.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I was there 2 years ago for an overnight stay before going to Northern Ireland. Every MP in Liverpool is Labour, neither Cameron, May or Johnson won a single MP in Liverpool so Brexit made no difference.

    Ther is also not a single Tory councillor in Liverpool, as I said it is a socialist city

    Just because there's no Tory councillors/MPs doesn't make it a socialist city.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Lord Frost blames the Northern Ireland situation on the fact that the EU side knew that there was no credible threat to No Deal. That to me sounds plausible.

    Since Frost and Boris were in charge of the negotiation at that point, including No Deal prep, you’d have to ask them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    ydoethur said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Now be fair TSE, comedy gold like the Wagatha Christie trial doesn't come around too often. Football news hasn't been this interesting in years.

    We're all immeasurably richer for it (apart from Rebakah Vardy, of course, who looks set to be considerably poorer).
    I've had tweet alerts on from the likes of Jim Waterson who have covered the trial, utter comedy gold.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968

    NEW THREAD

  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    edited May 2022

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    I really do think younger people are becoming quite right wing, in a way that wouldn’t have been possible 20 years ago, whilst thinking they are on the left.

    I think that will ultimately prove the downfall of the next Labour Government.
    Not the young people I know.
    Full on communism has been “back” for some time.
    I think it depends what you ask them. They want choice in all things and often have less of a concept of “society” beyond their group of choice. That’s parts of Thatcherism.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited May 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I went to Liverpool as part of my “getting to know the country” tour when I moved to the UK.

    First time I ever saw two women fighting in a pub to the point of physical injury/blood.
    You sure that wasn't Manchester/Salford?
    No.

    But I did have a girlfriend at Manchester Uni at one point, so my experience of Manchester’s grimy red warehouses is imbued with an erotic charge.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I was there 2 years ago for an overnight stay before going to Northern Ireland. Every MP in Liverpool is Labour, neither Cameron, May or Johnson won a single MP in Liverpool so Brexit made no difference.

    Ther is also not a single Tory councillor in Liverpool, as I said it is a socialist city

    Just because there's no Tory councillors/MPs doesn't make it a socialist city.
    Every Liverpool constituency voting for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 certainly does
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    mwadams said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.

    They really do shoot themselves in the foot.

    I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.

    Times they are a changing.

    No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
    Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.

    So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
    The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.

    Liverpool is a socialist city
    Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.

    As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
    There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019

    The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
    Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".

    Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
    It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.

    Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.

    So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
    So the LibDems are Socialist?

    On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
    Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.

    Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
    The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
    From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.

    Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.

    LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
    Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
    In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.


    Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.

    There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
    I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
    It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.

    Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
    Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).

    His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
    Will a coherent one-nation party ever thrive again, or are we tending towards looser coalitions of parties with distinct and maybe contradictory South, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, Midlands policies?
    That is a worry. Everything goes niche. The coming of Government by the social media generation where you surround yourself only with exactly what you like and who you agree with.

    As a linked point I was just struck by seeing (another) advert for an app driven “pay per go” GP service. I do wonder if they are eventually going to kill off the actual GPs and move use where no Government would date through market forces.
    In middle class, white collar jobs, the quality and extent of the private health insurance included is now a major point.
    I really do think younger people are becoming quite right wing, in a way that wouldn’t have been possible 20 years ago, whilst thinking they are on the left.

    I think that will ultimately prove the downfall of the next Labour Government.
    Not the young people I know.
    Full on communism has been “back” for some time.
    That’s what happens when memories of actual communism are unknown to the younger generations - many of whom would be absolutely horrified to see it in action.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    There's no need to be Militant about it though.
    Well it was the home of Lenin and Mao-cartney.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I went to Liverpool as part of my “getting to know the country” tour when I moved to the UK.

    First time I ever saw two women fighting in a pub to the point of physical injury/blood.
    Coleen and Rebekah continuing that fine tradition.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    HYUFD said:

    Oh who gives a fuck, HYUFD?

    Your appetite to sustain multi-thread debates about semantics is truly truly boring.

    My point that Liverpool is a socialist city however holds
    When was the last time you were in Liverpool? As someone who spends a lot of time there and married a plastic/plazzy Scouser, I'm guessing you haven't been often.
    I went to Liverpool as part of my “getting to know the country” tour when I moved to the UK.

    First time I ever saw two women fighting in a pub to the point of physical injury/blood.
    Coleen and Rebekah continuing that fine tradition.
    That’s what happens when stupid people have money. Much better to leave them to fight it out in a pub.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    ydoethur said:

    Lee Anderson is the Katie Hopkins de nos jour.

    Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.

    Monroe, who won a rancorous, high-profile libel action against the former Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins in 2017, tweeted that the MP’s comments were a “very clear cut case of outright libel”.

    Although not confirmed, the lawyer in question could be Mark Lewis who pioneered the phone-hacking claims that led to the closure of the News of the World.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson

    IIRC becoming bankrupt means you cannot serve as an MP.

    Come on Jack, give us the an Ashfield by election we can bet on.

    Lol as if she's winning that case
    That's what Katie Hopkins said.

    Like the Wagatha Christie trial, this can be avoided, the only people who end up well out of this is the lawyers.
    Now be fair TSE, comedy gold like the Wagatha Christie trial doesn't come around too often. Football news hasn't been this interesting in years.

    We're all immeasurably richer for it (apart from Rebakah Vardy, of course, who looks set to be considerably poorer).
    I like the new variation “The Scousetrap”

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    dixiedean said:

    Interesting stuff re Monarchy.
    The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning.
    We are now three weeks from the Jubilee.
    I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere.
    I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand.
    Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment.
    Deep sighs.

    Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.

    This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.

    And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
    Not everyone I am afraid
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Video of what looks very much like thermite cluster bombs, raining down on Azovstal steelworks in Mariopol this morning.

    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1525820181255270400
  • malcolmg said:

    dixiedean said:

    Interesting stuff re Monarchy.
    The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning.
    We are now three weeks from the Jubilee.
    I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere.
    I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand.
    Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment.
    Deep sighs.

    Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.

    This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.

    And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
    Not everyone I am afraid
    You and me both.
This discussion has been closed.